Talk:Digital Postmarks

Philately Low‑importance

	Philately portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philately, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of philately and stamp collecting on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PhilatelyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilatelyTemplate:WikiProject PhilatelyPhilately articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	An editor has requested that an image or photograph be added to this article.

Proposal to merge into Timestamp

this should not be merged with timestamp. I will make references to timestamp because a digital postmark is a unique application of timestamping AND email sender accreditation that is regulated by postal authorities globally.Sbanker 23:43, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

More importantly, digital postmarks are regulated by global postal authorities and have a much more focused application than timestampsSbanker 01:27, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is taking some time for me to get familiar with the referencing formats, but I am in the process of putting the references up so please don't delete for that reason aloneSbanker 00:54, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The timestamp article does a better job of discussing how digital postmarks work than this article does. Nothing in the recent changes makes me believe the article should not be merged into Timestamp. --Gerry Ashton

Regardless of my entries, the concept of digital postmarks involves MORE than just timestamping. It involves email sender accreditation, ISP participation (globally), and Postal Authority participation (globally) to name a few of the components. To simply crunch it under timestamping does not make sense and this article is expected to grow significantly after the New Year. We can make more significant links between the two, but linking accreditation and participation of the USPS and other Posts are also important steps. Please sign at the end of your comments using four tildas (Sbanker 02:30, 2 December 2006 (UTC)) so I know who I am speaking with.[reply]

As I understand it, the USPS electronic postmark can be used to digitally sign and timestamp Microsoft Word documents. Any party can later verifiy with the USPS that the document has not been tampered with since the electronic postmark was applied. It does not necessarily have anything to do with email, nor does it necessarily have anything to do with ISP participation. --Gerry Ashton 02:56, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

the USPS electronic postmark is currently used to sign and authenticate word documents, medical records, faxes, and emails by a variety of applications. The USPS EPM Extension for Microsoft Word is the only application available directly from the USPS, the other applcations have been developed by third parties using the EPM SDK. The Word extension has very limited email capabilities (proof of receipt). ePostmarks is developing an application of the EPM that will involve email authentication, Sender accreditation, ISP verification and guaranteed delivery, trusted inbox labeling, proof of receipt and more. Look for more details of this solution to be announced shortly.

It is important to maintain the distinction in the Wiki between DPM and EPM, since the USPS owns the copyright on "Electronic Postmark" and "EPM" and "Digital Postmark" or "DPM is the global standard and the name applied to the service when run by posts other than the USPS. FYI I helped author the DPM standard and designed the current USPS EPM service and currently i am developing the ePostmarks email application of the USPS EPM. Mtwolfie 19:03, 2 December 2006 (UTC) Michael Wolf[reply]

Also, I definately do not think Digital Postmark should be merged with timestamp. DPM uses timestamping as part of what it does, but really it serves as a non-repudiation web service that incorporates digital signature verification, trusted third party timestamping, and long-term non-repudiation of all of this data held by a postal authority serving as a trusted third party witness to the transaction. Mtwolfie 19:09, 2 December 2006 (UTC) michael wolf[reply]

After further reading, it seems that both DPM and EPM not only provide, and create a log of, a timestamp, they also check that any digital certificates included in the document are valid, and they check the digital certficates agains the certificate revocation lists provided by the certificate authorities. They also log that these checks have been performed. If my understanding is correct, I would now agree that this is a significant additional function beyond timestamping. Do the other editors think I understand this correctly? --Gerry Ashton 20:16, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are absolutely correct. I apologize for posting insufficient data at first. This is a new concept that I have become interested in and felt it was important to post now. If you find any additional information regarding EPM and DPM, please feel free to post. This article still needs more refining but I think its good so far. If you could take off the merge signature, that'd be appreciated Sbanker 21:00, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the merge template since all of those who have posted to the talk page now believe the article can stand on its own. Michael wolf wrote that "it is important to maintain the distinction in the Wiki between DPM and EPM." I think that can be achieved through careful wording of the Digital Postmarks article. If the article eventually becomes overly long, it could be split into a DPM and an EPM article at that time.

As to the distinction I would like to see drawn, I want to distinguish amongst services that are actually available (USPS Electronic Postmark in Microsoft Word), proposals that have been adopted by major organizations like the UPU, but not yet implemented, and proposals by startup companies which are not implemented. Wikipedia generally does not contain information about startup companies because there are so many of them, and so many of the ideas from these companies never achieve a significant place in the marketplace. --Gerry Ashton 21:20, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Process

The section Digital Postmarks#The Process does not agree with the process described in the demo available at https://www.uspsepm.com. What is the source of this information? --Gerry Ashton 04:14, 2 December 2006 (UTC) My apologies, the wrong process was posted for digital postmarks - that is actually the epostmarks process for authenticating email - I have drafted a revised process that is appropriate for the DPM and will ask Ed Shallow from Canada Post to review it, since he is the principal author of the DPM standard. I was a co-author on the standard and also I architected the current USPS EPM system so I can help get these properly documented on Wiki. Mtwolfie 18:53, 2 December 2006 (UTC) michael wolf[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Digital Postmarks. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141217092200/http://www.usps.com/cpim/ftp/pubs/pub32.pdf to http://www.usps.com/cpim/ftp/pubs/pub32.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:18, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]